Is 10 stone too heavy for a lightweight 15.3?

T

TinselTurkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 February 2009
Messages
394
Location
England
Visit site
Hi, I am posting this on behalf of a friend.

My friend is 5'6 and weighs just over 10 stone. She is quite slim.

Tomorrow she is a going to look at a 15.3 that she is thinking of loaning but she is worried that she will be too heavy. what are your opinions?
 
Ans: No, of course not

Unless horse is elderly, young or completely lacking in condition and muscle and frankly even then it would most likely be fine.
 
No not in normal circs if the horse is well,, fit and plenty of mucsle.

I have been told by my back lady today that my boy can carry a max of 12st and he's 16hh1 irish chunk. This is however, because he is lacking in muscle at moment. If he was in good condition she said he would be capable of carrying a large man.
 
I rode a lw TB that was 15.2/15.3hh when I was 11.5 stone and she took me everywhere just fine. So no she isn't :)
 
1Lucie-And hwo did you back lady pick this arbitary number out as the 'magic' number at which he could be ridden?
 
My goal weight is ten stone and I intend to inflict myself on a lightweight 16hh Thoroughbred. In my opinion, not problem at all.

A ten stone Show Hack is a lightly built horse of about 15.2hh. (This was a showing class in Queensland, Australia. Now that Australia is metric, I don't know if they still hold these classes because it was a hit and run visit on Google.)
 
good lord if 10st starts being considered heavy then i'm in trouble!! I've got myself back down to 10st so that i can get on my daughters 13.2hh to give him some schooling!!!
 
The height of the horse is completely irrelevant to its weight-carrying ability.

The relevant factor is the amount of bone the horse has. As a rule of thumb, a horse with 8 inches of bone (measure the circumference of the foreleg, just below the knee) can carry up to 13 stone. A horse with 9 inches of bone can carry up to 15 stone.

But these weights include all the rider's clothing (including heavy boots, etc., and the saddle. A traditional leather saddle can weigh over 2 stone. (Even the lighter-weight saddles weigh about a stone, and even the lightest synthetics weigh about 10 pounds.) Add the weight of the rider's boots, hat, heavy winter clothing...

And the weights in the rule here (e.g. 8 inches of bone can carry up to 13 stone) are absolute maximums - if the horse is very young, very old, has confo issues (e.g. back problems, etc.) or is unfit, it should not be expected to carry the maximum, even if it has the required amount of bone.

In this case, it is highly likely that the horse has 8 inches of bone, and the rider plus all clothing and tack may not weigh more than 13 stone. So, assuming the horse is also healthy and fit, there should be no problem.

But one cannot possibly answer this question without knowing how much bone the horse has, the combined weight of the fully-clothed rider plus saddle, and the health/age/fitness of the horse.
 
how do you define those weights though as 'absoloute maximums', who decided those were the maximum weights? More sensible is to use judgement- if horse and rider look massively out of proportion that's not right. IF the performance suffers, the horse is sore, reluctant to go forward or reluctant to accept the rider, that's generally a sign of the rider being too heavy. If the horse is willing, forward going (or normal for itself) and not rejecting the rider, the rider is not too heavy!
 
Htobago is quite right... What if the horse was conformationally impaired? Long backed, sway backed, toe in, cow hocked horses etc.... Bone circumference bears no importance and it works the other way around too. Fine horses with good conformation can carry a good weight.

Anyway, so to answer OP, if your friend considered herself too heavy to ride a healthy 15'3... What does she think cowboys ride? shires?

I must be obese then riding my 15'3 at 11 st. Poor little horsie being squashed by giant woman!!!!
 
SusieT said:
how do you define those weights though as 'absoloute maximums', who decided those were the maximum weights? More sensible is to use judgement- if horse and rider look massively out of proportion that's not right. IF the performance suffers, the horse is sore, reluctant to go forward or reluctant to accept the rider, that's generally a sign of the rider being too heavy. If the horse is willing, forward going (or normal for itself) and not rejecting the rider, the rider is not too heavy!
Click to expand...

Every decent confo book I've ever read has given the same bone/weight-carrying ratios. And "a horse with 8 inches of bone can carry up to 13 stone" means that 13 stone is the maximum - that is what 'up to' means.

I emphasised this because it also means that if there are any other confo/age/fitness issues, the horse should not be expected to carry the maximum weight for its bone.

I see what you are saying, but the trouble is that the horse's willingness is actually not necessarily a reliable guide. Horses can be remarkably tolerant creatures, and often patiently put up with a lot, including discomfort/tiredness/cumulative long-term damage from carrying a rider who is too heavy.
 
tallyho! said:
Htobago is quite right... What if the horse was conformationally impaired? Long backed, sway backed, toe in, cow hocked horses etc.... Bone circumference bears no importance and it works the other way around too. Fine horses with good conformation can carry a good weight.

Anyway, so to answer OP, if your friend considered herself too heavy to ride a healthy 15'3... What does she think cowboys ride? shires?

I must be obese then riding my 15'3 at 11 st. Poor little horsie being squashed by giant woman!!!!
Click to expand...

Thank you. And I agree with you too - up to a point. But I'm afraid it doesn't work the other way round: fine-boned horses should not be asked to carry more than the maximum weight for their bone circumference, however good their conformation.

The maximum weight is the maximum for a healthy, fit horse with good conformation. If there are any confo/age/health issues, the weight should be reduced - but this does not mean you can ask a horse with good conformation to carry more than this maximum.

Cowboys ride stock horses (e.g. Quarter Horses) who are often small but have plenty of bone. That is the whole point - the relevant factor is bone, not height.
 
htobago said:
Thank you. And I agree with you too - up to a point. But I'm afraid it doesn't work the other way round: fine-boned horses should not be asked to carry more than the maximum weight for their bone circumference, however good their conformation.

The maximum weight is the maximum for a healthy, fit horse with good conformation. If there are any confo/age/health issues, the weight should be reduced - but this does not mean you can ask a horse with good conformation to carry more than this maximum.

Cowboys ride stock horses (e.g. Quarter Horses) who are often small but have plenty of bone. That is the whole point - the relevant factor is bone, not height.
Click to expand...

Although, I see exceptions to this rule often enough to question the theory...
 
I think your friend should relax! My boy is 15.2 and carries me nicely (11stone plus tack) but he is quite a chunky ISH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top